I want to generate a list of some of the inherent flaws of representative democracies, as part of the Clean-Slate Government project over at the Clean Slate Society Forums. I welcome you to contribute to this project (both here and on there), either through posting more flaws, or offering potential fixes.

From Wikipedia article on Demarchy:

Most modern democracies are made up of republics or parliaments. In both of these cases, citizens participate in the direct election of individuals to represent them. Unfortunately, most citizens have neither the time nor the inclination to adequately study which person or party to vote for (see Rational ignorance). As a result, much time and money is devoted to political canvassing and advertising—where politicians promote themselves in much the same way as a commercial product. The result of this is that people vote according to their impressions of the politician and party based upon political advertising, plus any other form of media that has influenced them. The problem with this is that people may not necessarily vote for the best candidate since they have not taken the time to examine for whom to vote.

Many politicians make decisions based not necessarily upon what is the best thing to do, nor upon their own ethics and morals, but upon what is best for their own political gain. A politician is dependent upon his or her good standing with voters, as well as an ability to "fit in" with the party political structure. Since a person's time in politics sometimes is short, it is only natural that they do everything possible to continue their career.

In a traditional democracy, what happens when the majority, who may have the moral highground, are also pacifist and do not vote?

- Anonymous

A reliance on elites to keep things going in the face of apathy and withdrawal by the populace calls into question how long a polity can remain democratic, if not its very right to call itself a functioning democracy

- Ian Budge, "The New Challenge of Direct Democracy"

'A democracy is nothing more than an angry mob, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

- Thomas Jefferson

What is the use of democracy without the rule of law, democratic institutions, and civil society?

We find that democracy in the Middle East actually precipitates problems. Contrary to the neoconservatives’ arguments, democracy simply increases competition amongst the various factions in Iraq, or Lebanon, and simply turns each group against each other, increasing tensions. As they say, “all politics is tribal,” if in the U.S. Obama is getting over 90% of the black vote - and Hillary is getting a clear supermajority of the white women vote - then why do we blame anyone for voting their tribe?

“Democracy,” just means a way of choosing leaders. Unlike common belief, it is not the “only” or “best” form of government. Throughout the centuries philosophers have defined governments not by the way of choosing their leaders - but whether they rule for their own sake or for the sake of their peoples (like Aristotle). Moreover, the American founding fathers themselves feared and hated direct democracy for the “tyranny of the majority,” and ignorance of the people in directly choosing their leaders. In the words of American political philosopher Willmore Kendall, the founders made it such that majorities would have to be so enduring that they lasted several years - in electing a President and a Congress - and to survive many challenges of minority rights, until they would be passed.

Friedrich Bastiat, an eighteenth century French economist, writes in his The Law, that one unfortunate byproduct of democracy is that because one group will use government to achieve unfair advantages - for instance big business - then the people will use government to also achieve unfair advantages - for instance creating more and more regulations and programs against business and pro-labor. In the end, Bastiat claimed, you had a hodgepodge of laws created for the sake of injustice on other groups - and since two wrongs don’t make a right, you had a web of injustice.

A votrepreneurs (politicians) first concern is in acquiring, retaining and increasing his own power - even when it is detrimental to his own country's interests. Often, a votrepreneurer would rather be Captain of a sinking frigate than to be a First Mate of sea-worthy aircraft carrier.

A democracy is the best form of government we can have if it is working right.

The main culprit against this is capitalism's corruption of the system.

So insteasd of the government controlling capitalism, they control the government.

I do NOY oppose capitalism entirely. But I do oppose the 'runaway' capitalism.
It runs away from our US workers, our taxes, healthcare benefits, pensions, equality of citizenship by their runaway dollar stuffing frenzy that creates their runaway salaries and no doubt other such tactics of theirs.
And the US Constitution does not mandate the 'self serving' type of individuals.

The word Democracy is derived from the Greek root 'people power'.

On the other hand, the word 'republic' is derived from the Latin root
WEALTH + public.

Well, it just happens that the republicans are serving the corporate wealthy and the Roman church that have joined hands and created the 'new world order". that has started a spiral of DOWN sizing our economy to the third world countries .

So you now see the state of our econmy that is not serving the people but the wealthy instead.

There is a way to restore our Democracy to serve the citizens and that is the PUBLIC FINANCING OF OUR ELECTIONS. At the same time prevent all private dollars out of this function that gives the wealthy an UNFAIR advantage in politics.
The electoral process is a GOVERNMENT function and only government dollars should be used.

So an honest system working as our C'N mandates, would be the best type of goverment, IMO.

Read my article below on an ideal government that is Democratic Socialism.
Thank you.

Anyway, in your initial post you reference "representative democracy" but then several of your quotes refer strictly to democracy (not representative democracy). As you know, these are two very different concepts.

For example, Thomas Jefferson's quote was directed at democracy, not representative democracy.

I only favor "direct democracy" to the extent that we can directly elect our Representative to the federal House. I argue that, for the most part, those candidates are currently pre-selected by one of the two parties and/or the special interests. Otherwise, I am an ardent supporter of our republican form of government.

I assumed that the immediate purpose of such an excercise to be self-evident: That you must first understand a problem before you can imagine a solution.

I included Jefferson's quote as it is applicable to proportional democracy, which is the usual form of democracy as practiced. This is also one flaw which both represenative and direct democracies share (at least in their common forms).

Representative democracies are easier to flaw, and are also the more widely practised form of democracy, so I would expect most discussion to relate to representative systems. But I concede that there are inherent flaws in all forms of democracy, and I wouldn't discourage discussion of these. I just didn't want to preclude alternative forms of democracy as potential fixes either; hence my particular wordage.

MB; To my knowledge, no one has ever said the US system is perfect or with out flaw. In fact the opposite was and is thought. Its that the system has worked, with success, under the principles and law set up from its beginning. This representative system and the unique 'check/balance' practice, would not and could not work under any form of pure democracy.
Any issue or law from with a popular vote, would benefit only the majority in a time, not the interest of the Nation.

I am not sure where your going...."If we started from scratch, knowing what we do now". I recall many years ago, a movement wanting to write a new 'Constitution'. Think it lasted for about a week, when tens of thousands wrote in ideas; generally along personal grievances and then on trivial issues. The US Constitution and assume most others allow for change and in the US, it does NOT have to come from the Federal Government. In the US, where 50 sovereign States are involved, they have the right to petition government for a Convention to amend the Constitution, so long has 3/4 of them request that course. Technically it does not even have to be for the same grievance...

I assumed that the immediate purpose of such an excercise to be self-evident: That you must first understand a problem before you can imagine a solution.

It helps if you first identify and define the "problem" prior to proposing the solution.

If you are asking people to idenfity the shortcomings of "democracy", then I suggest you narrow the scope to refer to specific manifestations of "democracy" as currently implemented (as opposed to some broad theory of democracy.

Also, it is probably more meaningful if those "problems" were identified in a comparative way; e.g., the pros and cons of a republican form of government vs. a direct democracy.

I am not sure where your going...."If we started from scratch, knowing what we do now".

Jackson33, with these types of things, my skepticism is that it is easier to dream up vague utopian alternatives than it is to focus on the practical challenge of improving the system we already have. The former requires only the ability to engage in idle fantasizing; the latter requires commitment and hard work.

I don't have one. As I said, "you must first understand a problem before you can imagine a solution". I don't adequately understand the problem; hence my post. Can anyone think of more flaws?

As I have said, the problem is 'corruption' of the government officials.

Capitalism also has problems. Remember 1929? That was a major problem.
Our current economic problems is also a major problem with the crooked CEO's exposed after 9/11 and the yo yo economy that created the current housing slump.
So now we have another problem with the 'inflation' of costs for our goods and probably services as well.

MB; Briefly, Most government/societies through history have fallen from internal cause. Corruption generally given the blame...

The framers of the US Government, knew this and several warned that for any success, both government and the people would have to live with in the laws and the laws should evolve with an interest of the Nation and principles set up for guidance. Said another way; Laws themselves can turn society, if the society turns, with an end result of failure. No system can be devised, where all people are satisfied, its just not possible. "Flaws" are perceptions from social/economic/political viewpoints, not necessarily from the majority or in fact a near majority of the total.

A democracy is fairly useless if the people who vote aren't informed. Elections in the United States as of late seem to be little more than sheep-calling contests. Barring philosopher-kings, though, it's arguably the most workable system. :P

Unfortunately though it is already too late. Even Plato said, over two thousand years ago that it was too late. He was right, and because of it the dark ages occurred. Because of the world governments I expect nothing less that total destruction within 35 years.

Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.

- Winston Churchill.

The truth is that there does not exist any such thing as an ideal way to govern a large group of people. It's interesting to note how the framers of the USA constitution were careful to separate the powers, because I think they kind of knew the people wouldn't be the only driving force behind the decisions that get made.

The three classic powers I think are:

1) - The political elite (kings, congressmen, etc)

2) - The wealth elite (merchants, other rich people)

3) - The masses. (everyone else)

Inevitably every system seems to get taken over by one or the other, and then some kind of chaos ensues, or an economic collapse.

It works like paper, rock, scissors. The political regulate the wealthy, the wealthy regulate the masses, and the masses regulate the political. Any time that situation is disrupted, we have problems.

If the wealthy ever dominate the political, they demand rules that favor their interests as individuals, but may not favor the macro-economy as a whole. It ironically ends up in fascism.

If the masses dominate the wealthy, then they start demanding too much consideration as workers, and disrupt the ability of businesses to even function. It ends up in communism.

If the government dominates the masses, that's just a dictatorship. Usually it's a military junta. We all know how that looks.

Democracy gives citizens their proper place in this system.

The wealthy have to go through the citizens to get what they want from the government. The citizens have to go through the government to get what they want from the wealthy, and the government has to go through the wealthy to get what it wants from the citizens.

Think it was Ben Franklin that portrayed a democracy as mob rule, where 51% of a society can impose their ideas over the other 49%.

The US Constitution, sets up a 'Republic' (then of 13 colonies, today 50 States) which EACH elect (under primarily their terms) officials to represent their electorate/interest, in a place which is not one of those places (District of Columbia). It is not a democracy, never was intended to be and will not survive if attempts continue to make it one. IMO...

I want to generate a list of some of the inherent flaws of representative democracies, as part of the Clean-Slate Government project over at the Clean Slate Society Forums. I welcome you to contribute to this project (both here and on there), either through posting more flaws, or offering potential fixes.

From Wikipedia article on Demarchy:

Most modern democracies are made up of republics or parliaments. In both of these cases, citizens participate in the direct election of individuals to represent them. Unfortunately, most citizens have neither the time nor the inclination to adequately study which person or party to vote for (see Rational ignorance). As a result, much time and money is devoted to political canvassing and advertising—where politicians promote themselves in much the same way as a commercial product. The result of this is that people vote according to their impressions of the politician and party based upon political advertising, plus any other form of media that has influenced them. The problem with this is that people may not necessarily vote for the best candidate since they have not taken the time to examine for whom to vote.

Many politicians make decisions based not necessarily upon what is the best thing to do, nor upon their own ethics and morals, but upon what is best for their own political gain. A politician is dependent upon his or her good standing with voters, as well as an ability to "fit in" with the party political structure. Since a person's time in politics sometimes is short, it is only natural that they do everything possible to continue their career.

In a traditional democracy, what happens when the majority, who may have the moral highground, are also pacifist and do not vote?

- Anonymous

A reliance on elites to keep things going in the face of apathy and withdrawal by the populace calls into question how long a polity can remain democratic, if not its very right to call itself a functioning democracy

- Ian Budge, "The New Challenge of Direct Democracy"

'A democracy is nothing more than an angry mob, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

- Thomas Jefferson

What is the use of democracy without the rule of law, democratic institutions, and civil society?

We find that democracy in the Middle East actually precipitates problems. Contrary to the neoconservatives’ arguments, democracy simply increases competition amongst the various factions in Iraq, or Lebanon, and simply turns each group against each other, increasing tensions. As they say, “all politics is tribal,” if in the U.S. Obama is getting over 90% of the black vote - and Hillary is getting a clear supermajority of the white women vote - then why do we blame anyone for voting their tribe?

“Democracy,” just means a way of choosing leaders. Unlike common belief, it is not the “only” or “best” form of government. Throughout the centuries philosophers have defined governments not by the way of choosing their leaders - but whether they rule for their own sake or for the sake of their peoples (like Aristotle). Moreover, the American founding fathers themselves feared and hated direct democracy for the “tyranny of the majority,” and ignorance of the people in directly choosing their leaders. In the words of American political philosopher Willmore Kendall, the founders made it such that majorities would have to be so enduring that they lasted several years - in electing a President and a Congress - and to survive many challenges of minority rights, until they would be passed.

Friedrich Bastiat, an eighteenth century French economist, writes in his The Law, that one unfortunate byproduct of democracy is that because one group will use government to achieve unfair advantages - for instance big business - then the people will use government to also achieve unfair advantages - for instance creating more and more regulations and programs against business and pro-labor. In the end, Bastiat claimed, you had a hodgepodge of laws created for the sake of injustice on other groups - and since two wrongs don’t make a right, you had a web of injustice.

Since the author of this thread has not returned and probably posted to promote his/her own forum, we could discuss anything...

Democracy is a lose term, to begin with. My discussions usually oppose any form pure democracy (direct rule of total electorate) and the intent of what most Americans have endorsed as their foundation for governing all States. The Constitution.

Many small unincorporated towns and in the US, do rule by a pure democracy. The town hall meetings held regularly, generally with an agreed 'chairman' and staff, to see that their decisions are carried out.
Big topics, along the line of pot holes or who is not cutting their grass to meet the agreed standards. From there, you go to representative democracies (electorate votes and determines) used in most towns/cities on to counties and states, where the electorate in each State has chose its form of a State legislature. No two states are identical in the process, nor required to be. Originally these legislatures, with out the consent of the electorate, chose the Senators and electors (who chose the President and VP). Originally, the electorate were people who owned land or business, and happened to be 'white males' that lived in that states....ONLY.

kojax, democracy has progressed and to balance a perceived unbalanced system as the country grew and personal rights increased to fit social attitudes. The US Constitution, short of the amendments is a platform for a Union government and governing. The first ten amendments (ratified) were agreed to, by those founders, in order to get the Constitution Ratified by those first colonies and the ratification done by those first 'legislatures'.

What most people today, in a desire to make the Federal Government MORE democratic (additional public input), would be equal to trashing the US system itself and the Constitution. Then you have those 50 separate governments, with electorates (all people over eighteen) with entirely different concerns. Those concerns should be addressed to their state legislatures and the intended 'Common Interest' of all the States through representation to the Federal.

Cosmo; There is no government run by Capitalist and Capitalism, also by degree, exist in side many forms of government. Its a system of public ownership of business, opposed to government ownership and that simple.

As for 1929 and today's economic problems, the only comparison is government intrusion into the system. Today, however the major players are not subject to one countries mandates nor are the investors in Capitalism required to play in one countries industry. Starting in the 90's, a good many moved off shore and I suspect, in Mr. Obama, wins the National Election, good many more will. Most in fact are already set up and could easly move today. Exxon, for instance does 65% of its business outside the US and for the record Chavez (Venezuela) does most its business inside the US.

I did find it interesting, you list several opinions opposed to Democracy, then close by saying 'there is noting wrong' with it. I do agree any form of democracy is better than any totalitarian, dictatorship, monarchy or communist form, but the degree of public participation in todays US Federal Government has already gone to far. Before you know it, the PEOPLE are going to require government to give them jobs, housing, security, health care, retirement wages, from cradle to death and beyond...

It is interesting to consider that the internet allows a certain level of public participation that would have been impossible when your country was founded. I wonder how the founders might have set things up differently, had the internet been widely available 250 years ago. I realise that the 'what if' nature of the thought is a bit self defeating, on the other hand to consider that what the founders thought may have been in part a matter of practicality could lead to some interesting specualtion as to how they might found the US in today's environment.

fr; The heart of any people, their society, is based on the past. Even when reforming or instituting a new government, this will be...'What ifs' are part of any scenario of change, even when our Supreme Court makes a decision or Congress makes law.

The Constitution itself, is designed to give guidance and purpose of governing a people. What are National Interest and how to address them, were given and expected to be determined in future governments, but always under that guidance. This has been done on a National Level 42 times and in many cases from very different ideologies, also reasonably peaceful.

We do have instant communications available and seemingly more interest, by more people. Actually the percentage is probably less today than then and communication via mail, simply slower. I might add, News
Papers were then and not much different than today. That is in fact, how that Constitution was sold to the public, possibly the only reason the States did ratify.

Since the author of this thread has not returned and probably posted to promote his/her own forum, we could discuss anything...

Democracy is a lose term, to begin with. My discussions usually oppose any form pure democracy (direct rule of total electorate) and the intent of what most Americans have endorsed as their foundation for governing all States. The Constitution.

Many small unincorporated towns and in the US, do rule by a pure democracy. The town hall meetings held regularly, generally with an agreed 'chairman' and staff, to see that their decisions are carried out.
Big topics, along the line of pot holes or who is not cutting their grass to meet the agreed standards. From there, you go to representative democracies (electorate votes and determines) used in most towns/cities on to counties and states, where the electorate in each State has chose its form of a State legislature. No two states are identical in the process, nor required to be. Originally these legislatures, with out the consent of the electorate, chose the Senators and electors (who chose the President and VP). Originally, the electorate were people who owned land or business, and happened to be 'white males' that lived in that states....ONLY.

kojax, democracy has progressed and to balance a perceived unbalanced system as the country grew and personal rights increased to fit social attitudes. The US Constitution, short of the amendments is a platform for a Union government and governing. The first ten amendments (ratified) were agreed to, by those founders, in order to get the Constitution Ratified by those first colonies and the ratification done by those first 'legislatures'.

What most people today, in a desire to make the Federal Government MORE democratic (additional public input), would be equal to trashing the US system itself and the Constitution. Then you have those 50 separate governments, with electorates (all people over eighteen) with entirely different concerns. Those concerns should be addressed to their state legislatures and the intended 'Common Interest' of all the States through representation to the Federal.

Cosmo; There is no government run by Capitalist and Capitalism, also by degree, exist in side many forms of government. Its a system of public ownership of business, opposed to government ownership and that simple.

As for 1929 and today's economic problems, the only comparison is government intrusion into the system. Today, however the major players are not subject to one countries mandates nor are the investors in Capitalism required to play in one countries industry. Starting in the 90's, a good many moved off shore and I suspect, in Mr. Obama, wins the National Election, good many more will. Most in fact are already set up and could easly move today. Exxon, for instance does 65% of its business outside the US and for the record Chavez (Venezuela) does most its business inside the US.

I did find it interesting, you list several opinions opposed to Democracy, then close by saying 'there is noting wrong' with it. I do agree any form of democracy is better than any totalitarian, dictatorship, monarchy or communist form, but the degree of public participation in todays US Federal Government has already gone to far. Before you know it, the PEOPLE are going to require government to give them jobs, housing, security, health care, retirement wages, from cradle to death and beyond...

Jackson

You know the capitalists are a silent government that really controls the politicians with their influence dollars.

People do not think about that and this is not a news item since no one dares to expose this control or they may lose their jobs .

Cosmo; Think we just look at business from different viewpoints. I feel there purpose is to make money and maintain a customer base, while you would seem to think the sole motive is greed and take advantage of employees.

Many a career has been made accusing business or some corporate enterprise of dishonest practices, with the approval of the general public, always willing to bring down any self made person with wealth.

MB; Nice to see you come around and read your thread. As for 'the representative side' of government, its not easy to guess what you mean.
If from the Monarch Representative form, think you have, then yes I would agree on some major changes. The US changes figure heads every 4 to 8 years and has many options to shorten that tenure. Then all our States operate on Independent Constitutions, a requirement for any current or future addition to the Union. If anything we have far to many in some form of government, feeding from a less and less pot of money...

I do not oppose business in general.
I do oppose this 'dollar stuffing frenzy' that drives capitalism to become multi billionaires that is now destroying our economic balance to create depressions and bankruptcies as has happened recently.

JEQ; Yes, Cosmo corrected my BF quote, but said "I think" and was not sure. Rather not get into GW, but politically he wasn't the sharpest.

I have argued the 17A in both directions. I really don't see a difference, since the various state legislatures are truly beholding to electorate and would probably do no different. Mass., Kennedy an example, Byrd another.
Both have extremely high approvals in their states and don't think either legislature would have removed.

Cosmo; Business cycles, since the 30's have been tiny to what could have been and are driven by the consumer. Remember the dreaded "R" recession is defined as 2 quarters with a decline in GDP. Your talking an economy of near 4 TRILLION per quarter, occasionally its got to rest.

You know the capitalists are a silent government that really controls the politicians with their influence dollars.

People do not think about that and this is not a news item since no one dares to expose this control or they may lose their jobs .

Cosmo

Well it used to be that corporations didn't have the right to air politically based advertisements. Then in about 1978 the supreme court ruled that their corporate "personhood" made them citizens and so they should have the freedom of speech like any other citizen. That changed a lot of things.

Now I'm pretty sure they can't advertise for any particular candidate, though there may be loopholes, but they can advertise for or against certain bills that affect their interests.

Of course, any money they spend on favorable laws is profitable to them if they win, so they're making back the money they spend, whereas the non-profit organizations that advertise against them don't make any money back when they win. They just lose it.

I have argued the 17A in both directions. I really don't see a difference, since the various state legislatures are truly beholding to electorate and would probably do no different.

If that is so, then there is no reason not to repeal the 17th Amendment. And, as a bonus, we wouldn't have Senators who are beholden to the special interests for the millions of dollars they provided to the Senators' campaigns.

I have argued the 17A in both directions. I really don't see a difference, since the various state legislatures are truly beholding to electorate and would probably do no different.

If that is so, then there is no reason not to repeal the 17th Amendment. And, as a bonus, we wouldn't have Senators who are beholden to the special interests for the millions of dollars they provided to the Senators' campaigns.

In short, I follow the best I can the intent of the original constitution. To me it represents a consensus from debate of the best assembled group of individuals even convened, to form a government. They were also the first such group, with knowledge of failed governments through history and IMO, were concerned with issues other than themselves.

However, from day one they did attempt to alter the practices they set up, but maintained the integrity of the Constitution (worked through the system). Think 11A (ratified 1803), picking a president, VP, (IMO) was an error and that set the precedent for democratizing the Federal Government or at least removed a possible dual participation, which still exist in the other branches. Said another way, I am not sure that consensus, was for 'Party' control of the executive.

The root of your argument for abolishing the 17th A, (IMO) is flawed much the same way additional House representation is. The entire lobbyist/special interest has become a populist issue, to blame any seen problem and to attack Capitalism/Corporation activity, even to the point of achievements by individuals. As mentioned before, in some manner each group or individual involved, represents a segment of the population, in many cases a very large one. Might add, having read, probably a thousand quarterly reports, from many major corporations, I have never seen an expense listed "contribution" to a party or candidate...

... As mentioned before, in some manner each group or individual involved, represents a segment of the population, in many cases a very large one. Might add, having read, probably a thousand quarterly reports, from many major corporations, I have never seen an expense listed "contribution" to a party or candidate...

Jackson33, I am beginning to wonder if, in some Twilight Zone sort of way, I may be communicating with you in a parallel universe. Just in case that may be so, allow me to share some data with you that describes the federal Congress in the universe that I live in:http://www.cfinst.org/president/conv...rt2_Donors.pdf

“A new CFI report, the first in-depth study of 2008 convention giving, shows that the more than 100 organizational donors to the host committees have been heavily engaged in the struggle for political influence. Since 2005 they have dispatched nearly $100 million in contributions to federal candidates and parties, mainly through their Political Action Committees (PACs) but also via giving by their executives and other personnel. In the same period, they have spent over $700 million to lobby Congress and the Executive Branch. Now they are drawing directly upon their corporate treasuries to help provide $55 million in private financing to the Democratic convention in Denver and $57 million for the Republican conclave in Minneapolis-St. Paul, which will extend their lobbying reach.”

You see, in this universe, those transactions don't appear in annual reports.

Most corporations spend hundreds of millions in ADVERTISEING, many just on one event. Super Bowl comes to mind. Both conventions, not excluding the minor parties, hold special events in addition to the highly viewed conventions. Sponsoring any event is, simply said, money well spent by any organization involved in 'Name Recognition', the backbone of industry and might add politics itself. In golf Nike and a host of producers, pay millions to get their name shown, not to influence the game. Others pay ridiculous sums to maintain a billboard in a stadium, in hopes a home run a fly ball will get their name shown and so on...

Yes, an industry or an individual can and do contribute to lobbyist groups, to influence any number of viewpoints. This is perfectly legal and effective for the manufacturers or general publics interest. NRA, probably receives very little from the liberal segment of society but a good deal from workers, hunting enthusiasts or in fact constitutional government activist, to influence on politicians in government (not an election). No different in any lobbyist group which in most cases have millions of members.

Don't try to linking advertising, lobbyist or that direct influence of an election. They are quite different, with very different expected results. I may be in a different Universe, but in the one I live in, words mean things, laws mean things and reality is played with in the rules.

JEQ; Yes, Cosmo corrected my BF quote, but said "I think" and was not sure. Rather not get into GW, but politically he wasn't the sharpest.

I have argued the 17A in both directions. I really don't see a difference, since the various state legislatures are truly beholding to electorate and would probably do no different. Mass., Kennedy an example, Byrd another.
Both have extremely high approvals in their states and don't think either legislature would have removed.

Cosmo; Business cycles, since the 30's have been tiny to what could have been and are driven by the consumer. Remember the dreaded "R" recession is defined as 2 quarters with a decline in GDP. Your talking an economy of near 4 TRILLION per quarter, occasionally its got to rest.

How about the 1929 fiasco?

Many investors opted for a permanent rest by jumping out the windows of skyscrapers.

Well, it used to be that corporations didn't have the right to air politically based advertisements. Then in about 1978 the supreme court ruled that their corporate "personhood" made them citizens and so they should have the freedom of speech like any other citizen. That changed a lot of things.

Now I'm pretty sure they can't advertise for any particular candidate, though there may be loopholes, but they can advertise for or against certain bills that affect their interests.

Of course, any money they spend on favorable laws is profitable to them if they win, so they're making back the money they spend, whereas the non-profit organizations that advertise against them don't make any money back when they win. They just lose it.

Well, I think that public advertising regarding elections should be banned unless the advertiser also allows a rebuttal.
Paid advertising is NOT FREE SPEECH and therefore can be banned unless, like I said above, a rebuttal is allowed.

This is the only way to allow the average public to voice their opinions, since they cannot afford to pay for their views on the political scene.
All they have is a single vote.

Cosmo; The 'so called' great depression, was a result of DEFLATIONARY pressure. Where produced products/services, in order to sell, were priced below the cost to produce. As they were dropping prices, profits decreased and investors bailed. Banks failed and the rest well documented. Remember, that all Dow 30, do half or more their business in a world economy and most all listed on the NYSE do a good portion overseas.

Certainly a few did commit suicide as many lost everything, with nothing left but paying off debt incurred. Some of my ancestors on both sides did lose most their then fortunes, did not commit suicide and later recovered some to total and more than lost. Suicide is the forth highest cause for death in the US and more young folks, kill themselves over losing a boy/girl friend, than ever jumped out a window for money...

Question; Since I oppose Mr. Obama, based on his qualifications, are you saying I have no right to promote this opinion on a forum, in a newspaper or some airway media??? The "Fairness Doctrine" is a complete reversal of the intent of the first amendment...

JEQ; Well, since to disagree, you would have to understand my post, I assume you did and chose not to respond on an intellectual level. I get a little tired of politicians, trying to pander certain segments of society, mis-representing the purpose and objectives of lobbyist and/or groups. Obviously every person is not going to agree with many of these ideas, but are represented by others. I strongly oppose, environmental extremist, Attorney and Union lobbyist, but realize there are at least a few other active lobbyist, representing my viewpoints. By the way, if I understand your site correctly, there are at least a few lobbyist promoting additional House representation, in Washington and would be grateful for any donation, ESPECIALLY if from Corporate America...

Question; Since I oppose Mr. Obama, based on his qualifications, are you saying I have no right to promote this opinion on a forum, in a newspaper or some airway media??? The "Fairness Doctrine" is a complete reversal of the intent of the first amendment...

I support 'free speech', so you have a perfent right to do so. But the elections are a government process and should be regulated by the government to maintain a degree of equality.
Here on the internet, everyone can post a rebuttal.

But paid advertising does not give the average citizen the right to a rebuttal since they do not have the financial clout to do so.

That is why I believe in a government financed electoral process to promote equality between the competing candidates.

Regarding Obama, I will not vote for him and I will not vote for a republican, so I will pass on this election.

I am also dismayed about the chauvinism that emerged during this election and the attitude the democratic parties mandated control of the primaries by banning the Michigan delagates.
This smells of communism.

Our Constitution mandates a 'peoples' voting system and allows some state rights, not a party controlled election.

Cosmo; The concept of 'parties' was not around during the formation of our Government/Constitution, was formed. This came later and during the John Adams, administration. Some of the founders wanted to make qualifications and the election process part of the document, but realized to get ratified, they had to leave this to the States. Only requirements for age and residency are mentioned and the mental/physical state when arriving for duty or while serving. The States, over time have all but given Parties the authority over who is picked, even who is qualified.

"The average person"; Many people man telephones, go door to door, write letters to the editor and participate on political blogs/forums every day and often influence others. To those that desire to pay for advertising in some manner for a candidate is no different and acceptance by the paper is not mandatory. This is every persons right no less than the purchase of any legal product/service. If I want to buy a Cadillac and you can't afford the same car, does not make my purchase illegal, wrong or immoral. Picking National Candidates to serve, in my mind more important, should not be limited.

I have a little different understanding of this years Democratic Nomination process. Frankly, they were surprised by Obama's success, though in large part a media event. Once any sign of success was achieved (super Tuesday), the party hard no choice, but get him nominated, or face rebellion with in the party. Personally, I think it was unfair, particularly to Ms. Clinton. Michigan and Florida, should have never been punished, in my opinion to begin with, since Federal Law, allows states to determine their own procedures. Party rules should not trump Federal law, IMO...

I always hate to see a regular voter set out an election. For one thing in Michigan, you will have many local issues addressed not to mention congressional elections. Then if nothing else, one of the major party candidates, must be better than the other, for your agenda. If nothing else, there are other presidential candidates running...

Cosmo; The concept of 'parties' was not around during the formation of our Government/Constitution, was formed. This came later and during the John Adams, administration. Some of the founders wanted to make qualifications and the election process part of the document, but realized to get ratified, they had to leave this to the States. Only requirements for age and residency are mentioned and the mental/physical state when arriving for duty or while serving. The States, over time have all but given Parties the authority over who is picked, even who is qualified.

"The average person"; Many people man telephones, go door to door, write letters to the editor and participate on political blogs/forums every day and often influence others. To those that desire to pay for advertising in some manner for a candidate is no different and acceptance by the paper is not mandatory. This is every persons right no less than the purchase of any legal product/service. If I want to buy a Cadillac and you can't afford the same car, does not make my purchase illegal, wrong or immoral. Picking National Candidates to serve, in my mind more important, should not be limited.

After seeing what happened during these democratic debates, I think we should 'scrap' the party system and adopt the 'proportionality' of electing the politicians.
That way, people would just pick the candidate of their choice without a party affiliation.
The party system is tainted by the communist mentality.
And chauvinism is a result of the old testament phylosophy.
Religion has no place here in our political system.

Cosmo

I have a little different understanding of this years Democratic Nomination process. Frankly, they were surprised by Obama's success, though in large part a media event. Once any sign of success was achieved (super Tuesday), the party hard no choice, but get him nominated, or face rebellion with in the party. Personally, I think it was unfair, particularly to Ms. Clinton. Michigan and Florida, should have never been punished, in my opinion to begin with, since Federal Law, allows states to determine their own procedures. Party rules should not trump Federal law, IMO...

I always hate to see a regular voter set out an election. For one thing in Michigan, you will have many local issues addressed not to mention congressional elections. Then if nothing else, one of the major party candidates, must be better than the other, for your agenda. If nothing else, there are other presidential candidates running...[/quote]

Cosmo; While I agree, the parties have made a mess out of the 'nominating system', I do believe its up to those parties to correct the system. The constitution, left the choice to the states and the states have allowed the parties to chose, who they will then promote. The Democrat system, 'caucus/primary/apportioned/super delegates was intended to keep the system open, until the convention if there was no apparent and over whelming winner. Actually, I understand their motive has a few times some very controversial figures have run, nearly won and this year both the finalist were controversial. (maybe polarizing a better word). This year however, the truly unexpected did happen and Obama's handlers played the system, with a known controversial candidate. If the convention works the way set up, its still possible, Ms. Clinton will be the nominee or some one that did not run...The trouble is what will or could happen in the street of the US or if nothing else, the party itself.

This year there has been less religion than ever before. None of the finalist were loyal anything, including Obama...Unfortunetly they all, as have most all previous candidates and the winners, play to religious groups in the electorate. They have to for obvious reasons. You know, I do not practice or appreciate religion for myself, but I do realize this country was a depository for every conceivable world religion from the beginning.

I beleive that democracy is the best system if it is regulated properly. the majority of democratic governments are rife with corruption and greed. This is mainly because, as with any government system, its primary concern is its own survival. Wether its survival depends on doing the peoples bidding, or manipulating what the peoples bidding would be, does not matter. They will do what they have to to survive. In this respect democracy is the same as other government systems. Although in democracy change can be instigated through voting rather than overthrowing. The majority of governments, no matter what system they use, suffer this fallacy.

Dictatorship is normally a bad thing, but i feel in some cases where the majority of a countrys populace is on-side it can work just as well. Look at the success of Cuba, who has a better health and education system than most of the world, and this is under the shadow of american embargo and political pressure. Not to mention countless attempts at executing castro. Although he is a 'dictator', i think he is one of the greatest men of the last century and has shown how socialism can benefit people when done properly. Also he has shown the weaknesses of american imperialism, and demonstrated that not all political leaders are thinking about there own survival. If you dont beleive me, stop reading the western rhetoric, and read a decent biography of castro. Or have a look at his speech to the UN regarding what humanity needs to do to improve.

Really im just trying to illustrate that not all democracys are good, and not all other systems are bad. It all depends on the integrity of the people who have gained power.

Well, lets see...When Castro took over, basically a thriving small Capitalist Nation they had one of the top ten per capita GDP's in the world, people could travel into or out of the country freely and thousand of American went there to learn medicine, among many other things. Today they rank near last in GDP's, fire on any person trying to leave (its illegal) and no one from anyplace other than Cuba would study medicine there...F. Castro, himself was/is treated by Spanish Doctors (from Spain) and the hundreds of trained doctors sent to Venezuela, escaped from there trying in vain to get legally into America, based on their Cuban Medical credentials. Along with the 3-4 million Cuban exiles and their families living in Florida, I would tend to disagree with "one of the greatest people of the last century" or that anything proper was done for his people. He was certainly successful financially, with an estimated 100 million or so, said to be in Swiss Bank Accounts and the life style he and his family has lived, while killing off any competition to his control. I won't begin to explain his need for Russian help during all those years or the reasons why the US did maintain the trade embargos...

American Imperialism, thats a new one for me. What do you mean with this appraisal of the Representative Republic???

By the way, I was not a Batista fan, but certainly his people did much better even with the political corruption he offered....

when you say 'did much better' you mean about %5 did financially. the rest of the population had nothing, no educational prospects (unless you were middle-upper class), no national healthcare, nothing. The americans used cuba as a holiday camp and the capital was rife with casinos and brothels for the use of the american financial elite, and establishments were run by the american mafia, and farmland was used for the benefit of the american economy.

The batista regime used torture and executions to keep power in the country, backed by the american government financially and politically. Castro on the other hand still uses the death penalty, but when he executed members of the batista regime he used the laws that were used in the trials of nazi germanys war criminals, and the UN found no evidence of mal-practice or 'show trials'. the accused were found guilty of war crimes, including mass murder.
If castro has so many millions in bank accounts why does he live such a modest lifestyle? he has left it a bit late to spend it all! And theres never been any hard evidence that convinced me it is true. Just more anti-castro propaganda.

May i also point out that cuba has a lower illiteracy level than the uk or the USA, and is one of the world leaders in biotechnology, developing technology that is used in medicine and crop growth that you and i both use everyday. Also if you disagree with me, if you ask the majority of cubans they hold him in the same regard as their national hero 'jose marti' known as the apostle of independence.

Castro has been praised over the years by malcolm X, Nelson Mandella His holiness the pope and several others, and im not one to discount there opinion without a further look.

In terms of american imperialism; what do you call there actions in the middle east? tourism? i dont think so. The americans are only interested in evil regimes where there is economic benefits involved in their removal. Iraq has oil, afghanistan has regional strategic value. there 'friends' with the autocratic regime in saudi arabia, who have invested trillions in their economy. you have there obsession with iran, who according to newsnight on bbc this evening 'if both countrys had a government that were ruled by the people, this standoff would have been resolved long ago'.
Then theres countless examples of medelling politically and physically in countries all over the world. they had arranged with the taliban to build an oil pipeline through afghanistan to aid in oil supplies from the middle east without having russia involved. That was before 9/11 mades such a deal impossible. Then there is the american companies in iraq that not only stole iraq's money, but the money of the american tax-payer. America is driven almost entirely on economic well being, with disregard to moral obligations. I beleive the majortiy of the american population are blinded to this by the countless american brainwash 'news' channels on cable. The sooner the democrats are in power the better, they are by far the lesser of two evils.
America sits on a moral plateau, and they think they cant be touched. they think whatever they do is for the good of the world, and that is the WORST sideeffect of democracy. Just because you are elected in a democratic system doesnt make all your actions right. How dare they (and my home country, the UK) disregard the opinions of the majority of the countries of the UN and do their own thing on a pack of lies. How many soldiers and innocent civilians have lost their lives on false pretences of a 'nuclear threat' and 'WMD'. Utter pish. if you watch videos of their speaches before hte war started, its laughable but embarrassing at the same time.

Two quotes before i rest on this matter (which you may tell, i feel strongly about):

George Galloway: "Some believe that those aeroplanes on September 11 came out of a clear blue sky. I believe they came out of a swamp of hatred created by us. "

Hemann Goering (nazi leader): "Of course the people dont want war...that is understood. But voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

I read some comments on here about the american elections, and the god debate. I find it interesting how in america religion is a massive contributor to votes, but in the UK politicians speaking about religion is a big no-no for all voters, near enough. is that a good or bad thing? i suspect the less religion involved is for the better.

In any free society, where the individual is in charge of his/her own destiny, though having access to opportunity of any other person, some will excel, standout, become leaders, achieve wealth or whatever the differences are. In the US, many people choose to live off the spoils of others, for whatever reason and achieve the limits only of what the society will offer. If your following this, its the people in general in the US and in Cuba or any socialistic society, its the governing. The governing then, in order to maintain control and stability offer only what is needed to this end.

In the late 1950's, in Cuba and each of the US States, more and more were in this process toward achievement, basically from a period of poor opportunity (depression 30's) and wartime (WWII & Korea). The US had its villains, just as Cuba and both were in a process to ridding government of corruption, allowing a peacetime society to achieve...

Cuba, was an American Playground, for entertainment and in Cuba, just as in Las Vegas it was corrupt. Your welcome to check out RESULTS, where Las Vegas WAS the second choice then under Cuba and how the two systems differ. Additionally, many of the achievers, from the US were in Cuba in the late 40's- 50's. primarily from agriculture, but represented in many field. These results also easily traced. You might want to read some on the 'King Ranch' in South Texas. They had a larger operation in Cuba, did play the 'Company Store' in both places. In South Texas, today they still have the company store thing going with two small towns on the property, but additionally donated several properties which have become prosperous towns, full of rich people. (Kingsville/Alice a couple)

Castro, did not take control though any democratic process, did not dispose of his opposition under any humanitarian process or maintain that control under any process including endowed human rights. I am sorry, he simply represents to worst of humanity that had emerged in many parts of this planet at that time...Remember Castro, prior to the overthrow professed to form a democratic government, with a free choice of who should run the government and had the help some of the US for some time. He deceived his people and those from elsewhere who would and could have helped.

Literacy is not formal education, but the practice of that intelligence. In those days and the many before, folks were educated to very different levels. What they did with learned knowledge, many times self learned and in life means nothing, with out an atmosphere of practicing the knowledge...

I think you will find many people, sincerely believe that achievers in any society are responsible for the non achievers, but rarely are willing to use their own resources to equalize the difference.

Why is the 'Free flow of oil' or the economies of the world nations, so trivial to you or those that think as you. Are you sure the 50 year history of US efforts to maintain that free flow, deserves the hateful comments so many mention. Do you understand the progress made in so many places, other than the US, that have increased standards of living or joined in the worlds prosperity, or the ones now trying to get involved. India, China are not the only ones and many others are now enjoying these benefits. Iraq, Afghanistan or other depressed areas may soon be powers in world affairs, just as Brazil is today. Is this your problem or that so many nations are achieving and the people in these countries. Is it to much competition for you.

On Religion; The US was formed from peoples fleeing intolerance of religious beliefs. During the 15th to 18th centuries, religion dominated the powers of the times, hundreds of wars were fought to force viewpoints on others, even the King of England formed his own national religion (1506). By the 18th Century, every imaginable decenter of the worlds dominant religions were in the Americas. The government that formed (1776-1790), came from these people who were insistent that religion should not be any part of the governing system but that the right to practice beliefs should be a basic RIGHT. They were and every US president has been some form of a Christan, even some devoted practitioners. It not possible to remove these foundations from the electorate or to say its not of some importance.
In short, religion is part of the system and the US electorate of today, but not and should not be part of mandating law.

Jackson33 i dont have time this evening to get into an extensive response, so ill just say a few quick words.

Yes, Castro did cease power in a revolution, but he wanted to free his country from the regime. There was no democratic process in place for him to do that, so that is understandable. But during the campaign he did say to his soldiers when they asked what to do with the prisoners 'Treat them well, do not insult them, and do not harm them as the life of the unarmed man is sacred'. Revolution in most cases can not be done with a pen, or by speaking. He unlike most politicians was a man of action.

Oil is imperitive to all societys, nevertheless it can be aquired through negotiation and co-operation, not by forcing the political situation in oil rich regions in your favour through military action and dodgy politics.
The problem with poltics is there are two sides to every story, it all depends who you beleive. Statistics are manipulated easily.

we are on very different sides of the spectrum, and i find your opinions interesting. Got me thinking while i was at work. I found it strange how opinions can be so incompatible, thats why politics is a great place for debate.

In the US, medicines/medical supplies are the equivalent of oil, around the world and needed by many societies. Our government cannot tell this industry where to ship or deny (embargo) them selling to any nation. Oil is the lifeline of industry and I have no problem with any producer asking whatever price they want. However, when any country threatens the worlds economy (in this case, not the US) by disruption of its flow from other than its own production, to me this is an act of war. I think OPEC has accepted this principle and has cooperated with the worlds nations, at least since the 70's...

Since the late 80's, oil has been used to leverage political opinion, possibly even religious concept and dialog. Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and ultimate removal, IMO was the beginning of a problem, driving him back into Iraq a temporary solution, which was dissolving. IMO; The US foreseeing some problem and with the consent of most mid-east countries, took actions and in a presents became the deterrent to the conceived problem. I do think WMD were a factor, ignoring UN mandate and the constant pot shots at British/American planes in the 'no fly zone' were factors, but in the end and under those perceived problems, the oil flow, was the final political reason/cause for action.

On the other hand and I mean this; If the US persist beyond yesterday, not to understand that any shortage, real or not, is in great part due to the electorate or people of THIS country in not allowing our private industry to explore for and drill on US property, whether directly from the people or their representatives. With an apparent choice of McCain/Obama, in accordance to their words, it would seem time will run out, before action....

In the US, we are in the tail end of a political year. When this election is finally held (Nov.), believe me drilling will have already begun in hundreds of places with both party's blessing. They both (majors) operated on preservation of the party and doing whatever it takes. Until the last week or so, neither thought the public favored opening up the restrictions placed by themselves (both parties) to those that explore, drill and refine the products. It may take an 'Executive Order' to shut down legal actions by extremist groups, but it will get done.